Radiotherapy in hepatic, pancreatic & biliary tract cancers

Radiotherapy in management of pancreatic, hepatic & biliary tract

tumors

Dr Jyotirup Goswami

Deparment of Radiotherapy

Westbank Hospital

Problems RT is uncommonly done in these diseases,

hence even more uncommonly discussed

Lack of awareness of the role of RT in hepato-biliary tumors

Lack of technology to safely deliver RT in hepato-biliary tumors

Lack of randomised data

Carcinoma Pancreas: Where does RT fit?

Adjuvant RT +/- CT

Neo-adjuvant RT + CT

Palliative RT

Intra-operative RT

Adjuvant RT for completely resected Ca pancreas

The data is confusing! 4 main RCTs Still no consensus on whether RT +/- CT is a

standard component of adjuvant therapy for Ca pancreas.

Options are : (1) Adjuvant chemotherapy alone (GEM-based)

(2) Adjuvant CT-RT (FU/GEM-based) (3) Adjuvant CT-RT + adjuvant

chemotherapy

GITSG trial N=46 (completely resected with microscopically

negative margins)

Observation vs FU-based CT-RT

RT was split course (20 Gy/10#2 week gap20Gy/10#)

Interim analysis itself showed striking survival advantage for adjuvant CT-RT.

Median survival for obs vs adj were 10.9 months vs 21 months (p=0.03)

Arch Surg 1985;120(8):899-903.

EORTC 40891 N=218 (curatively resected head/periampullary

tumors)

Observation vs FU-based CT-RT

RT was again split course, total dose 40Gy/20#

Non-significant trend towards improved median survival with adjuvant therapy seen in carcinoma head of pancreas patients (17.1 months vs 12.6 months)

Ann Surg 1999;230(6):776-782; discussion 82-84.

ESPAC-1 N=289 (completely resected)

4 arms: (1) Observation (2) Chemotherapy alone (FU) (3) CT-RT (4) CT-RT followed by chemotherapy alone

No statistically significant difference in survival between the 4 arms.

Chemotherapy vs no chemotherapy statistically significant median survival advantage (20.6 months vs 15.5 months, p=0.009)

Chemoradiation vs no chemoradiation statiscally significant median survival DISADVANTAGE (15.9 months vs 17.9 months, p=0.05)

Lancet 2001;358(9293):1576-1585.

RTOG 9704 N=538 (carcinoma pancreas)

FU-based CT-RT vs GEM-based CT-RT

No statistically significant survival difference between the 2 arms, possibly due to protocol non-compliance.

In subset analysis of carcinoma head of pancreas patients, GEM-based CT-RT showed significant median survival advantage (20.6 months vs 15.9 months, p=0.033)

Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 May;18(5):1319-26. Epub 2011 Mar 10.

Why adjuvant Gem?CONKO-001

N=386 (curatively resected)

Observation vs 6 cycles of GEM (4-weekly regime)

No statistically significant difference in median overall survival

Statistically significant difference in median disease-free survival for GEM vs Obs (13.9 months vs 6.9 months, p<0.01)

JAMA 2007;297:267.

Optimum adjuvant protocol:NCCN guideline 2011

Postoperative imaging studies + serum CA 19-9 level (to ensure no biochemical or radiographic evidence of persistent disease)

↓ 6 months of 5-FU or gemcitabine as systemic therapy

OR 5-FU-based chemoradiation

Gemcitabine +RT as a component of adjuvant therapy is still non-standard & cannot be endorsed.

Capecitabine has similar efficacy to intravenously administered 5-FU, and is an appropriate substitute.

Adjuvant RT dose & techniques Dose= 50 to 60 Gy @ 1.8-2 Gy/#

Hypofractionated protocols are also well-tolerated (57Gy/25#)

Conformal techniques are essential

Highly conformal techniques like IMRT and stereotactic radiotherapy are also possible & allow dose-escalation.

Image guidance is a must for more conformal therapies

RTOG contouring guidelines for adjuvant RT for pancreas

CTV must include:

Neo-adjuvant CT-RT Rational approach in borderline resectable and

locally advanced/ unresectable settings.

Locally advanced>180-degree arterial invasion OR occlusion of the SMV/PV system WITHOUT gross disease outside the pancreatic primary.

However, there is a lack of strong survival advantage data.

CT-RT vs RT for advanced pancreatic cancer: 2 RCTs

Mayo Clinic: N=64 FU-RT vs placebo-RT Median survival

significantly better in CT-RT arm (10.4 vs 6.3 months)

GITSG:

N=194 3 arms: RT alone

(60Gy) vs CT-RT (40Gy) vs CT-RT (60 Gy)

Significantly improved TTP & OS with CT-RT

No significant difference between high- & low-dose CT-RT arms

Lancet 1969;2(7626):865-867.

Cancer 1981;48(8):1705-1710.

CT-RT vs CT for advanced pancreatic cancer: 4 RCTs

ECOG: FU vs FU-RT (40Gy) No median survival

difference between the 2 arms

GITSG: SMF vs SMF-RT

(54Gy) Significant

improvement in median survival for CT-RT arm (9.4 vs 7.4 months)

J Natl Cancer Inst 1988;80(10):751-755.

J Clin Oncol 1985;3(3):373-78.

FFCD-SSRO : GEM alone vs CDDP+FU+RT

(60Gy)GEM Unusually low median

survival in the CT-RT arm (8.4 months)

Unusually high median survival in the GEM-alone arm (14.3 months)

Poor compliance due to inclusion of CDDP, high dose of RT, inclusion of nodal volumes protocol violations in the CT-RT arm.

ECOG 4201: GEM-RT (50.4 Gy)

followed by weekly GEM vs GEM alone

Closed early due to poor accrual

J Clin Oncol 2006;24(18S):4008.

Role of biologic therapy:NCICTG trial

N= (advanced pancreatic cancer)

2 arms: (1) Gemcitabine alone at 1,000 mg/m2 weekly for 7 weeks, then 1 week off, followed by gemcitabine days 1, 8, 15, every 28 days

(2) Gemcitabine + erlotinib at a dose of 100 to 150 mg orally daily.

Overall survival was improved for the gemcitabine + erlotinib arm compared with patients receiving gemcitabine alone (191 vs. 177 days, respectively; hazard ratio for death 0.82; P <.02).

First trial to demonstrate a very small, but statistically significant survival advantage for a gemcitabine-doublet over gemcitabine alone.

First trial to show improved survival by integrating a targeted agent into standard therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer.

J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1960.

Optimum protocol for locally advanced disease

Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy for 2 to 4 months consolidation with chemoradiation (FU/Capecitabine + 50-50.4 Gy) in patients who do not have rapidly progressive distant disease.

If patients are responding to chemotherapy (objective radiographic response/ CA 19-9 level decline) after 2 months and tolerating therapy well continue for 2 more months.

If radiographic local progression/CA 19-9 level plateau or increase/local symptomatic progression/ chemotherapy is poorly tolerated, Chemoradiation .

If distant progression during chemotherapy 2-week course 30 Gy of 5-FU or capecitabine-based chemoradiation ONLY in patients with symptomatic primary tumors.

NACT-RT in operable Ca pancreas:SFRO-FFCD 9704:

N=41. Phase II trial Operable pancreatic cancer Treated by neo-adjuvant RT 50 Gy with conc

CDDP-5FU curative surgery 27/40 patients received the full protocol 26/41 patients could be operated, of whom

80% had R0 resection. HP revealed major pathologic response in 50%

of resected specimens. Local recurrence rate= 4% 2-yr survival rate=32%

Adjuvant OR Neo-adjuvant for operable Ca pancreas

Intra-operative Radiotherapy Rational strategy in unresectable/ borderline

resectable cases. Best results with pre-op EBRT + IORT> post-

op EBRT alone OR IORT alone.

Carcinoma Biliary Tree Few trials, compared to pancreatic cancer

Most trials include both cholangiocarcinoma & carcinoma gall bladder

Adjuvant and neo-adjuvant protocols are similar to that of Ca pancreas (except that Gemcitabine alone has less of a role in standard therapy)

Encouraging results with IG-IMRT and SBRT in recent years.

SEER Database Adjuvant RT for Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

1988-2003 (4758 patients): Significant difference in overall survival between Surgery +RT vs Surgery alone (p<0.001) & between RT/Surgery/both vs none (p<0.001)

1973-2003 (2323 patients): Adjuvant RT is not associated with any improvement in OS/DFS.

Todoroki et al N=63 (cholangiocarcinoma)

49 patients had curative resection, of which 29 patients received adjuvant RT.

IORT + p/o EBRT (n=17) vs p/o EBRT alone (n=6) vs IORT alone (n=6)

5-yr survival rates were 39.2% vs 0% vs 16.7%.

Statistically significant improvement in 5-yr survival rates for IORT+EBRT vs resection alone (39.2% vs 13.5%)

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;46:581.

Ben-David et al

N=28 (biliary malignancies)

Adjuvant RT (54Gy median dose) +/-CT (54% cases).

Significant survival differences between patients with R0 and R1 resections (24.1 vs 15 months) but NOT between those with R1 and R2 resections.

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;66:772.

Chemotherapy alone as adjuvant therapy: 1 RCT

Takada et al: N=508 (resected biliary tract & pancreas

tumors)

MMC-5FU vs Obs

No significant difference in survival across all sites

Better survival with chemo for Ca GB, on subset analysis

Cancer 2002;95:1685

Chemotherapy alone for advanced biliary tract cancers: 1 RCT

ABC-02 trial: N=410 Locally advanced non-metastatic cholangioca,

ampullary ca, gall bladder ca CDDP + GEM (3-weekly) x 8 cycles vs GEM (4-

weekly) x 6 cycles Significant median overall survival benefit in doublet

arm (11.7 vs 8.1 months, p<0.001) Doublet is also well-tolerated, with only neutropenia-

associated infections being significantly more compared to the single-drug arm.

The CDDP-GEM doublet has now become a standard of care for adjuvant therapy in biliary tree cancers.

N Engl J Med 2010;362:1273-81.

Other agents for unresectable disease

IMRT for pancreatico-biliary cancers

Hepatocellular carcinoma

Radiotherapy is an option in a number of different situations, but not the 1st choice.

Radiotherapy for HCC is a complex issue due to:

(1) Respiratory motion(2) Tolerance of surrounding normal GI tract(3) Tolerance of liver itself, especially in the

background of cirrhosis

Any intervention in HCC has to consider not just the tumor size and stage, but also the Liver Function status.

Earlier indices, like the Child-Pugh score, are still useful guides for deciding on/ against surgical intervetions.

More global scores, such as the BCLC, are more useful, as they integrate the stage and the liver function, and can be directly used to determine prognosis & management

Child-Pugh Score

Indications of RT in HCC

(1) As bridge to transplant (localised ds, CPS A/B)

(2) In patients refractory to TACE/RFA (localised/advanced ds, CPS A/B)

(3) In patients unsuitable for resection/transplant/RFA (localised/advanced ds, CPS A/B)

(4) In patients with portal invasion (advanced ds, CPS A/B)

(5) Palliative for symptom relief (metastatic ds OR CPS C)

Where is Radical RT possible? <3 lesions

<6cm maximum size

Normal LFTs (CPS A/B)

No extrahepatic disease

>2cm from GI tract

>700cc of normal liver possible to be spared

Treatment of HBV/HCV

Treatment of the underlying viral infection is often ignored, but is intimately related to both liver function and survival

Most (70-80%) of HCC in Asia is due to HBV infection, while in the West, the commonest cause of HCC is HCV infection (5-20%)

Referral to a gastroenterologist/hepatologist should be compulsory in all cases of HCC

Trans Arterial Radio Embolisation (TARE)

Y90 microsphere commonly used

Other radioisotopes used are I131,Re188,Ho166

TARE>TACE (longer TTP, lesser toxicity) but equivalent in survival

2 phase 3 RCTs of TARE in liver mets from CRC have shown TARE+Chemotherapy>Chemo alone (better RR and TTP, equivalent OS)

Gastroenterology 140:497-507 e2, 2011

J Clin Oncol 28:3687-3694, 2010

Interstitial Brachytherapy (Ir192) Particularly indicated in

patients unsuitable for RFA: T>10cm OR <5cm from hilum

Contraindication: Bilirubin>2mg%

Flexible catheters are inserted at 1-2 cm intervals percutaneously under CT guidance

No impact of size Impact of dose CTV

D100> 20.4 Gy correlates with better prognosis

Liver mets from CRC:1-yr Local control rate with ISBT>90%

Survival advantage over Best Supportive Care

Dosimetric advantage over SBRT: higher CTV dose with lower dose to peripheral rim of normal tissue

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 78:172-179, 2010

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 78:479-485, 2010

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 78:172-179, 2010

Charged Particle TherapyProtons

Protons have a dosimetric advantage due to Bragg Peak effect reduced dose to surrounding normal tissues (including liver) with reduced integral dose

No radiobiologic advantage

Range uncertainties are an issue, due to CT artefacts caused by presence of indwelling stents/ intraluminal contrast material

Doses used 58-67CGE (hypofractionated regimen)

Limited number of centres, expensive, data purely retrospective.

Large series (Chiba et al; N=192):

5-yr local control rate= 86.9%,

5-yr OS rate =23.5%

Charged Particle TherapyCarbon Ions

Radiobiologic advantage over photons

RBE=3 OER=1.6 (photons

3-4)

Doses used 50-80CGE (hypofractionated regimens)

Retrospective series (Kato et al;N=24):

5-yr LC rate>80% 5-yr OS rate=25%

Dose Response relationship for HCC

Is there a dose response relationship for Liver Metastasis?

Prognosis for liver metastases, varies on the primary (CRC vs breast/lung) & presence of extra-hepatic metastases

SBRT (for 1-3 lesions, <5-6cm size) Stereotactic Body

Radiotherapy means precise delivery of high doses of hypofractionated radiotherapy to disease sites outside the brain.

May use a Stereotactic Body Frame +/- abdominal compression plate, to counter setup error & respiratory motion respectively.

However, an SBF, is neither fool-proof, nor cheap.

Thus, SBRT often replaces the physical body frame with image-guidance for equal or even better accuracy.

Motion management can include:Compensating for motion: (1) generation of ITV with static beam delivery(2) gating(3) trackingControlling/reducing motion:(1) voluntary breath holding techniques(2) active breathing control (ABC)

Problems in assessing the impact of SBRT

SBRT dose schedules are extremely heterogenous

Even the dose prescription methods are heterogenous, with the dose prescribed variously to the isocentre/ tumor periphery and prescription isodose between 60-95%.

The lower the prescription isodose to the tumor periphery, better dose fall-off to surrounding normal tissue, but more inhomogenous dose at the centre of the tumor

Biological modelling for the high doses per fraction typically used in SBRT, are inadequate, hence the need for vigilance

Dose constraintsConventional RT SBRT

Liver: 1/3 vol <50 Gy 2/3 vol<35 Gy 3/3 vol<30 Gy

Kidney: 1/3 vol<50 Gy 2/3 vol<28 Gy 3/3 vol<23 Gy Stomach: 1/3 vol<60 Gy 2/3 vol<55 Gy 3/3 vol<50 Gy Spine: Max <45 Gy

Liver: 1/3 vol <21 Gy

½ vol /700cc<15 Gy

Spine: Max<15 Gy

Stomach: 5cc<15 Gy

Kidney: 1/3 vol <15 Gy

For conventionally fractionated 3DCRT/IMRT, the dose constraint used is Normal Liver V30Gy<33%

Radiation Induced Liver Disease (RILD)Classic RILD

Occurs 2-3 months post-RT

Associated with hepatomegaly,ascites +/- jaundice

Due to veno-occlusive disease

Seen in healthy livers

Non-classic RILD Occurs 1wk-3

months post-RT Seen in cirrhotic

livers Rise of SGOT/SGPT

with worsening of liver function

Without features of classic RILD

Treatment: Once established, RILD is difficult to manage and is invariably fatal in the absence of transplant therapy.Medical management with diuretics, etc is only symptomatic

Take Home Messages

Despite conflicing data, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is viable and rational for pancreatico-biliary malignancies

GEM-based protocols are superior to 5FU-based protocols

Neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is viable for locally advanced disease

Dose-escalation is possible for conformal techniques

Take Home Messages

Radiotherapy has multiple indications in the setting of HCC & liver metastasis

Imaging has a key role in diagnosis and tumor delineation of HCC

Image-guidance is of key importance for hepato-biliary tumors, for control of respiratory motion

Thank you